Have something to say?

Ready to be published? LXer is read by around 350,000 individuals each month, and is an excellent place for you to publish your ideas, thoughts, reviews, complaints, etc. Do you have something to say to the Linux community?

>I guess it's not so much the reading of the NY Times that surprises me as his publicly admitting to it.

That's the difference between conservatives and liberals.

Conservatives like to be informed, and value the benefit of multiple sources and multiple points of view. We like to be challenged, for that is the only way to stay on the road to truth and wisdom. Better to invest a few grains of salt than to shut out information or perspective.

Liberals, as evidenced by the recent retreat from a debate hosted by Fox, prefer something else.

>>Conservatives like to be informed, and value the benefit of multiple sources and multiple points of view. We like to be challenged, for that is the only way to stay on the road to truth and wisdom. Better to invest a few grains of salt than to shut out information or perspective.

Present administration excepted I hope? Although I've known a far greater number of conservatives who look distinctly like the liberal perspective you've chosen to portray here -- present administration included in that. That is like the pot calling the kettle whatever color the pot is. I've also known a far greater number of liberals who look like the conservative perspective you've chosen to portray here.

> Well, dino, you have to admit the NY Times is more advanced than "See Jane run", even if only by a grade level. :-D

I think we started on "See Spot run" in the second grade, so it would probably be two grade levels. Not much of an improvement, but...

> Although I've known a far greater number of conservatives who look distinctly like the liberal perspective you've chosen to portray here

Dek, the majority of people don't like to have their view challenged, regardless of their political persuasion. The people who are willing to will always be in the minority. There are people in both parties who take the time to be informed about the issues and know the arguments on both sides. They're in the minority and have little influence in either party. The conservatives have the historical advantage that some in their party have considered both sides of the issue thoroughly, recorded their observations, and gotten their policies integrated into the Republican platform. Of course, our current president has abandoned most of those principles (smaller government, lower spending, due process, the rule of law, and avoidance of entanglement in foreign affairs, just to name a few).

The reason you haven't met many conservatives who match Dino's description is undoubtedly twofold: you don't seek them out and you live in a liberal dominated area, making it statistically more likely for you to encounter liberals of that type.

In any case, the media (both traditional and new) is dominated by those who stridently oppose any view counter to theirs.

> Is dino trying to tell us that he's a closet liberal?

That seriously depends on your definition of liberal. The modern liberal, as defined by the Democratic party, is a full fledged socialist. That hasn't always been the case. As just two examples, at one time liberals agreed that limited government was a good thing, and supported gun ownership as being an equalizing force. Dino would probably get along with those "liberals" fine.

@ jdixon: The reason you haven't met many conservatives who match Dino's description is undoubtedly twofold: you don't seek them out and you live in a liberal dominated area, making it statistically more likely for you to encounter liberals of that type.

I live in one of the more rhetorically conservative areas of the country. People here are conservative enough that they don't like to admit they've discovered fire -- much less use it to cook or heat their homes! Maybe I'm overstating a bit, but fair or not, that is my picture of a conservative. I'm fairly sure that is not what dino or jdixon have in mind. However, when you look at the usage of the word "conservative", I believe it means one who looks to the past and what has worked in the past. Whereas liberal, to me, means someone who looks to the future and possibilities that the future holds. I also think that most people fall into a continuum somewhere between the two. Very rarely will you find a strict liberal or a strict conservative.

I agree with what jdixon said about the current president abandoning conservative principles and I also agree with him that most people don't like to have their views challenged regardless of political persuasion. However, that brings into question what dino said about conservatives liking challenges to their way of thinking. Dino, you may like challenges but to make that a blanket assertion about conservatives simply does not match my experience of them.

Jdixon, I'm not sure that democrats define that liberal equals socialism. More specifically, I'm not sure that democrats do this or that some republicans try to paint them that way.

I realize this is off topic and want y'all to know that. However, I saw some problems in what has been claimed here and wanted to share my perspective. I hope that is ok. I know there will be some disagreement with what I've said and you're welcome to rebut either here or with me personally. Just please watch the blanket statements. I don't know how productive it would be to continue to debate this on an lxer forum -- much as I might like to! ;-)

Don K.

PS. dino would probably get along well with the Liberal party in Canada. which, despite the name, has what we would call a "conservative bent" here in the US..

> I believe it means one who looks to the past and what has worked in the past.

The problem is that you are applying dictionary definitions to a political term. That can get you into trouble. I still remember the 2004 Presidential debates when John Kerry, who called himself a "progressive" attacked George Bush's proposals to overhaul Social Security, including a plan to give individuals ownership over part of the funds they contribute. Kerry's pledge was that he wouldn't change Social Security at all. In other words the (so-called) conservative proposed a massive overhaul, and the (so-called) progressive dug in steadfastly against change.

In American terms, conservatives (these days, at least) tend to be in the Jeffersonian mold of a democratic society of peers whilst liberals chase a more Hamiltonian vision of autocratic rule and powerful government.

> I live in one of the more rhetorically conservative areas of the country.

Rhetoric != reality, but I'll take your word for the matter. In that case you just have to look harder, knowing that the percentage of those you seek is probably less than 5%.

> I'm not sure that democrats define that liberal equals socialism.

Well, first let me acknowledge that liberal != Democrat and conservative != Republican, though that's how the terms are usually used. That said, if you look at the platform of the current Democratic party and compare it to socialist platforms of the past, I believe you'll find something like an 80% or greater correlation.

> or that some republicans try to paint them that way.

Republicans try to paint Democrats as socialists (usually successfully, see above) because they know that historically the American people relate socialism and communism, and know that communism is still considered a bad thing by most Americans.

I'm pretty much a pure libertarian, so the Democratic Party's central plank of using government to help people eliminates me as a supporter. The historical record is that government imposed solutions to people's problems simply do not work. From Social Security onward, big government programs to help people have been pretty much a complete failure, with only occasional short term successes. Social Security has been the most successful, but even it was flawed from the start, and will be bankrupt within my expected lifetime. And since Republicans have reduced themselves to only arguing about the size of such programs rather then eliminating them, they've also pretty much lost my support.

And yes, this is stretching (more like demolishing) the TOS. Let's blame DC for starting it. :)

>I'm pretty much a pure libertarian, so the Democratic Party's central plank of using government to help people eliminates me as a supporter.

Careful there! A true libertarian position (as opposed to merely a selfish one) does not preclude government activities to help people. It's been more than a dozen years since I did any serious studies into Libertarianism, but I remember prevention of violence being a Libertarian value and violence being defined in a way that includes things like ensuring the availability of decent education for kids, etc.

> A true libertarian position (as opposed to merely a selfish one) does not preclude government activities to help people.

It does if they use tax money to do it, Dino. Now, excess funds left over each year could be used for one time projects, as that would undoubtedly be cheaper than refunding the money, but special taxes for such purposes aren't in keeping with Libertarian principles.

>Even those with ambitious goals realize that they often can't be achieved in one step.

There is a logical fallacy in the statements.

If government had no role or duty in the welfare of the state and its people, no interim measure would be needed because education would be of no concern. Let the chips fall where they may, and who cares about creating a permanent underclass of abused and uneducated children. After all, that's what we have now. How bad could it be?

Quoting:No, it does not. You are confusing Libertarianism with simple "I got mine so screw you"ism.

To someone sitting out here in Australia, Libertarianism certainly looks like that. Not that the, so called, socialists of the Democratic party, or the wanna be Fascists of the Republican party look in any way better. There doesn't seem to be in any of the popular political ideologies, of the US, any concept of Social justice. Both the major parties seem only really committed to Big Business, corporate America, and social welfare for the welthy, and the Christians that infest the Republican party seem hell bent on creating a theocracy.

You do get a rather heavily filtered view, just as our view of Australia is infected by Nicole Kidman and crocodile fighters.

>There doesn't seem to be in any of the popular political ideologies, of the US, any concept of Social justice.

That's not remotely true. It's just not something that sells papers or gains viewers.

In a perverse way, you could consider the jailing of Paris Hilton and Martha Stewart as evidence that social justice matters.

Americans do a lot of volunteering and a lot of good work, including -- especially -- those Christians you despise.

The question becomes one of who should do what. The entire federal system was based on a distrust of government, and especially distant government. That's why public schools are run by local governments -- in theory, the governments most responsive to the people.

Quoting:In a perverse way, you could consider the jailing of Paris Hilton and Martha Stewart as evidence that social justice matters.

And I thought it was because they were guilty of a crime.

Quoting:Americans do a lot of volunteering and a lot of good work,

I suppose they do, the very lack of a social justice agenda from any political party makes it necessary that people volunteer their time, while the system which sees social justice as a personal thing continues to create the conditions that make the sort of poverty, that requires volunteers to act as band aids, worse.

Quoting: including -- especially -- those Christians you despise.

I don't despise all Christians, I used to be one myself, but I do those that would foist their delusion upon the rest of us. Like the ones that seem to have so much power in the Republican Party, and who's agenda seems to a Theocratic state. "The Hand maidens tale" is a good read that demonstrates just where those Christians would like tto take the US.

One thing I have noticed over the years is that there seem to be so many people, in what is the richest country in the world, who live in poverty, You don't see poverty like that in Socialist countries like Australia and New Zealand.

If Martha Stewart were less famous, I doubt she would have been convicted. She certainly wouldn't have gone to jail.

In Hilton's case, it's a closer call because of the probation violation, but you need only to read stories of people being killed in crashes caused by drunk drivers with 3 or 4 DUIS and suspended licenses to realize how few people actually go to jail in those circumstances.

>You don't see poverty like that in Socialist countries like Australia and New Zealand.

I'm sure you don't. Doesn't mean it isn't there. For example, my filtered news doesn't indicate that native people (is it correct or not to refer to them as aborigines) fully share the wealth.

And, let us not forget that American poverty permits a car, a cell phone, a color television with cable, etc.

>I don't despise all Christians

Good to know there's one or two of us you can tolerate. I have yet to meet any like the ones you describe, but I doubt that I would like them either, presuming they exist.

I didn't say there's no poverty, I said you don't see poverty like that which we see in the US

Quoting:For example, my filtered news doesn't indicate that native people (is it correct or not to refer to them as aborigines) fully share the wealth.

You'd be correct. You can refer to them as Aborigines. In Queensland they call themselves Murri, and in New South Wales and Victoria, Koori. The people from the central desert regaion have another name for themselves, as do the People from the Kimberlies and the the North West. My countries treatment of it's indigenous people is our shame. Most of the destruction of the Aboriginal culture was carried out by Christians indoctrinating young children into Christianity after stealing them from their parents - for their own good, this went on up until to late 1960s, and was continued into the 1970s under Social welfare provisions (I know personally two Murri women, sisters, who were stolen from their parents to be brought up by Christians - for their own good. They still carry the scars of being taken from their mother, and told she was a drunk who gave them away.

Quoting:Good to know there's one or two of us you can tolerate. I have yet to meet any like the ones you describe, but I doubt that I would like them either, presuming they exist.

I come across them on a regular basis on social network boards I visit. They are easy to pick, they are usually out there campaigning for Creationism and it's modern incarnation Intelligent Design to be taught as science, and arguing that the separation of Church and state clauses of the US constitution are an Atheist lie. People like Ann Coulter, Fred Phelps, Jerry Falwell, Ken Ham, to name a few.

We have a saying over here "As cold as Christian charity" meaning Christian charity has an agenda that has nothing to do with helping a person, and everything to do with indoctrination. That's what the Missions, the church I grew up in were hell bent on doing. I remember reading many a smug report from the Missions, where They had established hospitals as a lever to convert the natives to Christianity.

> If government had no role or duty in the welfare of the state and its people, no interim measure would be needed because education would be of no concern.

Education is too important to leave to the state, Dino.

> After all, that's what we have now.

Which demonstrates the point nicely.

Tracyanne:

> There doesn't seem to be in any of the popular political ideologies, of the US, any concept of Social justice.

The basic US concept is that a limited government, as ours was originally set up to be, shouldn't have the time or money to be worried about social justice. That's something for society to deal with, not government. Government should be concerned with protecting its citizens and ensuring equality under the law.

> I suppose they do, the very lack of a social justice agenda from any political party makes it necessary that people volunteer their time.

Which is better, that the government take money by force to use as it sees fit or that individuals give of their own money as they see fit?

> while the system which sees social justice as a personal thing continues to create the conditions that make the sort of poverty, that requires volunteers to act as band aids, worse.

There is very little true poverty in the US, and it is not getting worse. From memory, a fairly recent study found that the poorest US state, Mississippi, was better off than most of Europe.

> ...but I do those that would foist their delusion upon the rest of us.

Well, I won't grant that it's a delusion, but you are correct to despise those who attempt to foist any belief system on you. Including the one that government spending is the best solution to poverty.

> Like the ones that seem to have so much power in the Republican Party, and who's agenda seems to a Theocratic state.

Seems to be, based on the information you have available. Your sources are biased, and they view they represent is divorced from reality. Which is, of course, a personal opinion, and you are free to reject it.

> One thing I have noticed over the years is that there seem to be so many people, in what is the richest country in the world, who live in poverty

See my above two comments. True poverty is almost unknown in the US.

> ...and arguing that the separation of Church and state clauses of the US constitution are an Atheist lie.

The US constitution is available online. You are free to read it. To my memory, the phrase "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the document.

What they are actually referring to is the first amendment, and the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". That's not quite the same thing as "separation of church and state".

I don't know. The poverty I have seen in parts of WV, SC, and other places is true enough. It is obviously worse for some in other countries, but I would deem what I've seen to be plenty "true".

While the thread seems to be a bit OT, I would submit that, while I certainly believe there are some who desire to lead the US to become a "Christian" nation, the reality is that most people I know realize that should not be the goal. Not only would that lead to problems similar in nature to fascism (which Christian denomination should be deemed 'blasphemous' next?), it also robs everyone of numerous opportunities - opportunities that can only come in the midst of a diverse society. Frankly, that applies to Islamist, Buddhist, and other religion-based nations.

Quoting:Christians are a large and diverse group. Presuming that a few represent the whole is like presuming all Muslims wish to kill innocents in terrorist attacks. It just ain't so.

Hear Hear!!

Sweeping generalities are as inaccurate as they are easy to say. I am learning to stay away from them.

I had a conversation with my Brother the other day about FOSS and I was trying to help him find some software that would do what a proprietary program would do but he did not want to learn anything new or change what he used. I joked that he sounded like an 80 year old.

It is the resistance to new ideas and change in general that are the largest danger to our society. People who try to keep things as they are or the way they used to be are what is going to be the greatest obstacle to living in a better world.

And that has nothing to do with religion or anything, it has to do with people and their attitude towards life.

> The poverty I have seen in parts of WV, SC, and other places is true enough.

DC, those folks probably own their house and land (at least in WV, I can't speak for SC), have enough food to eat, have electricity, and have adequate drinking water. By world standards, that's not poverty. They're poor, yes, but poor in the US is nothing like poverty in the third world.

Scott, while I agree with you in general, allow me to disagree on one point:

> It is the resistance to new ideas and change in general that are the largest danger to our society.

Change can be either good or bad. Resistance to change merely for the sake of change not only isn't unreasonable, it's wise. The folks advocating change have an obligation to demonstrate that what they're advocating would actually be an improvement if they want others to accept it. Preservation of what's good is a virtue, not a fault.

I guess what I'm saying is actually the old "moderation in all things" truism, but it does bear repeating occasionally.

Who needs sun-blocker when you have threads like this. I am not a frequent commenter here but I think that will be changing. For the better of course. I think I need a place to settle down, I need stop wandering. I sometimes think of myself as a drive-by commenter. The LXer community is a fine and well rounded group of people. You have a lot to give and I have a lot to learn. All I have to do is pay attention which will keep me busy 100%.

Quoting:...Including the one that government spending is the best solution to poverty.

It has always worked far better in Australia than the American influenced "Social Justice is the responsibility of the Community" stance that our current government has taken - in addition John Howard and most of his cabinet refer to themselves as committed Christians, interestingly. In their drive to Americanise Australian society, they destroyed Medicare and forced everyone on to private medical insurance, much to the delight of the insurance lobby. Not so long ago every person in Australia could be certain of quality free medical treatment. Now we a have a two tier (actually 3 tier) system much like the US where the wealthy have high quality care provided by their Medical insurer, the poor can obtain a health care card from Social security, and the working poor have to pay to see the doctor. I suppose some Christian group could come along and help out the working poor who fall through the cracks, but I doubt it.

Quoting:What they are actually referring to is the first amendment, and the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". That's not quite the same thing as "separation of church and state".

Yes the intent of the clauses is to create separation of church and state. See also the following.

Quoting:Constitution, Article VI, Section III

" but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

"The remaining part of the clause declares, that 'no religious test shall ever be required, as a qualification to any office or public trust, under the United States.' This clause is not introduced merely for the purpose of satisfying the scruples of many respectable persons, who feel an invincible repugnance to any test or affirmation. It had a higher object; to cut off for ever every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the national government. The framers of the constitution were fully sensible of the dangers from this source, marked out in history of other ages and countries; and not wholly unknown to our own. They knew that bigotry was unceasingly vigilant in its own stratagems, to secure to itself an exclusive ascendancy over the human mind; and that intolerance was ever ready to arm itself with all the terrors of civil power to exterminate those, who doubted its dogmas, or resisted its infallibility."

Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Vol III, (1833) p 705.

Quoting:> True poverty is almost unknown in the US.

I take it that the, so called, trailer trash, are not counted as living in poverty.

Quoting:nahhhhh! couldn't be - microsoft is a changed company and has changed their ways - they learned a lot from the netscape case.

look now they are even a linux distributor with the novell deal and with open xml soon to be an ISO standard they are opening their hearts and minds to open source and open standards.

good old microsoft - I knew they would change.

Good old Microsoft have indeed changed. They've changed from the company that actually did innovate, owned no software patents, objected to them, into a company that is willing to use software patents as a bludgeon to maintain their moribund business model.

>Yes the intent of the clauses is to create separation of church and state.

No, it is not.

There have been people -- including Supreme Court justices who have used the phrase, but, if you'll look at the actual decisions and their rationales, you will see that to be emphatically untrue, a simple-minded bromide for the bumper sticker crowd.

In truth, the First Amendment prohibits the true separation of church and state because a true separation would require the government to deny access to places, people, programs and services on the basis of religion, which is something that very same First Amendment prohibits.

It's a tricky thing, like school vouchers for parochial schools (or Pell Grants for Notre Dame) being constitutional while direct support of religion classes is not.

It's also why deductions to churches are tax deductable and why a number of direct to student government programs cannot discriminate against students attending religious schools.

Whatever made me think 'balance' might have anything to do with our constitution? Hmmm... Oh yeah, it was that weird 9th-Grade US History teacher who wore green pants, a cream-colored shirt and brownish Liberty Bell tie - together. Interestingly, his outfit isn't the only thing I haven't forgotten. ;-)

Quoting:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress is prohibited from creating a state religion such as exists in Britain. The intent of this is that Government has no role in religion. The clear intent here is the separation of Church and state, to clearly delineate that the governments role is separate from the role of religion. The intent of the founders seems clear on this.

quote]Thomas Jefferson interpreted the 1st Amendment in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in January 1, 1802:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." [/quote]

> I take it that the, so called, trailer trash, are not counted as living in poverty.

No, they're not. Almost all of them have a home, a small plot of land, a car, a television (with cable), clean running water, enough food that they're probably overweight, and probably a number of consumer devices such as a microwave, VCR, or DVD. They are not in poverty in any real sense of the word. They may be near bankruptcy, but that's another matter entirely.

Quoting:No. The intent, clearly stated by numerous people, is that there not be a state sponsored religion. Again, not the same thing.

Thomas Jeffereson's own words clearly refute that.

Thomas Jefferson interpreted the 1st Amendment in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in January 1, 1802:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

The historical context of the separation clause can only be what the framers intended, not what someone in the 21st century would like it to be.

James Madison warns about keeping the Historical background in mind.

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." -- James Madison, Primary Author of the Constitution, President of the United States, Mainstream Militant and Revolutionary

> Almost all of them have a home, a small plot of land, a car, a television (with cable), clean running water, enough food that they're probably overweight, and probably a number of consumer devices such as a microwave, VCR, or DVD. They are not in poverty in any real sense of the word.

I do believe you've just defined the central belief system of a Republican.

Interesting. I would have to dispute the "almost all" reference. Many rent the trailers in which they live - never mind the land under them. I distinctly remember a family without any of those accessories. They may have had access to a well, so maybe we'll let slide on the clean water. I can't say whether it was running - though some people I met certainly did not have running water. You know the family is poor when the little 8-year-old girl is willing to clean a groundhog - a varmint we shot for farmers and threw away - for dinner.

I met people who had no running water, and one couple's outhouse (in 1985-ish) consisted of a roof on top of 4 posts - no walls. And the outhouse was visible from the kitchen window - I can't imagine what it must be like to watch your dearly beloved huddle out there while you're scrambling eggs. I think I would have to put up a curtain. This was not far from Lost Creek, where I grew up. It was literally the kind of place where you drove down the dirt road, turned at the old oak tree, and drove up the river bed to the house. But you still had to park the car at the bottom of the hill since they didn't have a driveway. It was, oh, I don't know, maybe 100' up to the house.

I'll grant these folks typically had a roof over their heads - no matter how rickety. And there were generally at least two bedrooms, a kitchen and possibly some sort of family room or such. I'll assume the one couple either had a car or depended on nearby neighbors for a ride. And to think I made my town seem like Mayberry to all those jarheads from the big cities! What a hoot!

WRT constitutional interpretation, I'm afraid it takes more than a bit of Googling or a trip to Wikepedia to get that right. Intent is not divined from a single individual, but from the body that passed it. Jefferson's statement was nice in a PR sense, and provides insight into his thinking, but, he made it in a letter more than ten years after the Bill of Rights passed. It was not part of the legislative debate.

The first reference by the US Supreme Court to Jefferson's "wall of separation" -- more than 150 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified -- appeared in a decision that upheld a state law that used tax money to pay transportation costs for students who attended private schools -- including religious schools.

Dino, I don't see how the state paying transportation costs for students who attend private schools - icluding religious schools, invalidates a wall of seperation between state and church. If the money had been used to fund only non religious school students, it could have been argued that the state was making a religious statement. If the state had paid only for students of religious schools it could be argued that the state was making a religious statement. But by funding both, clearly the state has made no commitment for or against religion. There is clearly a wall of separation between state and church, and the state has clearly acted impartially as the foundation clause intends.

By the way, I'm not JUST going to the Internet to find something that will support my argument. I spent quite a bit of time some time ago studying up on the US constitution, I studied it because it's a brilliant document, of which the Australian constitution is a poor shadow, in my opinion.

>Dino, I don't see how the state paying transportation costs for students who attend private schools - icluding religious schools, invalidates a wall of seperation between state and church.

It doesn't because there isn't one.

However, your statement is interesting, because the people who brought the suit, a federal district court, and a court of appeals, and 4 Supreme Court justice thought that it did.

The right answer is, if there were a wall of separation, that the state could not give tax money to further religion, period. The US Congress couldn't have a chaplain, either, nor the military services. For that matter, my church could not meet in a public high school, which it used to do before we got the money to buy land and put up a building.

The fact is that, rhetoric aside, there is no wall. The state cannot favor one religion over another, any religion over no religion, or no religion over any religion. That's it. No state sponsorship, no special treatment for or against.

>I spent quite a bit of time some time ago studying up on the US constitution,

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was referring more to your comments on legal interpretation. It's a wee bit more involved than you seem to realize.

> Many rent the trailers in which they live - never mind the land under them.

Rent still = have. I didn't say own.

> I distinctly remember a family without any of those accessories. They may have had access to a well, so maybe we'll let slide on the clean water. I can't say whether it was running - though some people I met certainly did not have running water. You know the family is poor when the little 8-year-old girl is willing to clean a groundhog - a varmint we shot for farmers and threw away - for dinner.

DC, you're forgetting where I grew up. We didn't have indoor running water and plumbing till I was in my late teens. That was only just over 30 years ago. I've eaten groundhog for dinner. We were not in poverty. Poor != Poverty, nor is the availability of modern sewage systems the determining factor. Poverty in the sense tracyanne is trying to use it is defined primarily by shelter, food, and water (some folks would add basic medical care to that, but that's debatable). If you have those, you're not in the poverty she's claiming. You're only poor.

Now, that may not be what she means by the term, nor is it the official government definition (which defines it based on income), but it's what most people think of when they use the term. That type of poverty does in fact exist in the US, but it is much rarer than she thinks, and there are programs to deal with it. Those programs are not always successful, but the reasons aren't usually due to lack of funding.

> I spent quite a bit of time some time ago studying up on the US constitution, I studied it because it's a brilliant document...

Thanks. We like to think so. Now if only we would follow it on occasion...

I am certain that some of the founding fathers wanted more of a separation than is granted in the letter of the Constitution, but what they decided on isn't a separation, but (as Dino has pointed out), no favoritism or sponsorship. The free exercise of religion must allow individuals, even elected officials, to act upon their beliefs, so there can be no absolute separation. What they wanted to ensure was that there would never be a time when state=church, or vice versa.

Traceyanne, our government is supposed to be neutral toward religion, not anti-religious. That said, I was once told that a community center would not grant our ministry permission to meet because we were a religious group. I had asked in advance of launching our ministry. When we did launch, I simply chose to use my home, rather than pursue some of the other options available. However, I could easily have pushed the issue and won my case.

The cases where cities are made to remove religious symbols make headlines, but the courts have made some important decisions to protect religious freedom. That's why, for example, a religious group is just as free to reserve or rent a space offered to the public as a secular one.

Quoting:'s also why we don't actually have one. The wall sounds good when you say it, but turns out not to be neutral in practice.

That's right, a wall is intended, but in practice you don't have one. You don't have one because the intent is ignored. What you get instead, particularly in the Bush Jnr Administration is a flouting of the intent, and very possibly the text of the establishment clause. You get that flouting when, for example the bush administration funds religious based groups for the purpose of promoting a religion based agenda - in for example sex education, where abstinence is taught. You also get that flouting when when religious agenda are allowed to set Science curricula, by introducing religious theology masquerading as science - the pseudo science of Creationism and Intelligent Design, so that some ding bat theists don't have to deal with probability that we are related closely to Gorillas and Chimpanzees. This is why many Americans, and people from other countries worry that the US might become a Theocracy.

Quoting:The cases where cities are made to remove religious symbols make headlines, but the courts have made some important decisions to protect religious freedom.

Where those symbols amount to the state or an arm of the state promoting a religious ideology, this is not only reasonable, but also within keeping with the establishment clause.

Quoting: That's why, for example, a religious group is just as free to reserve or rent a space offered to the public as a secular one.

And so it should be, if the religious organisation is paying out of their own money, and not being funded by the state, in some manner, it should not even bean issue, and not even come under the establishment clause.

One of the interesting consequences of allowing Creationism or Intelligent design to be taught as science, is that while the proponents, at least in the US are Christians, and would expect to be able to - in whatever subtle or unsubtle way they chose - speak of this creator in terms of Christian theology, in reality every religion from the totally ding bat, such as the church of the flying Spaghetti Monster, (that we would all here agree are ding bat) to Hindus to Jains to Buddhists, to Aboriginal shamans, could, under the establishment clause have a legal right to teach their version of Creationism or Intelligent Design, right alongside the Christian version. We wouldn't get much science done, and students would in the end be even more scientifically illiterate, but hey thems the breaks, so long as the Theists are happy and don't have to be confronted with the probability that we are just another animal, more intelligent, in most cases, than the others.

> What you get instead, particularly in the Bush Jnr Administration is a flouting of the intent...

Would you care to provide specific examples? While I'm willing to grant that this administration has a deplorable record on Constitutional matters, I can't think of any cases where it violated this particular one. It's been rather busy with abridging free speech, warrantless searches, unlawful detentions, and foreign invasions, to name a few.

> You get that flouting when, for example the bush administration funds religious based groups...

I don't recall that particular proposal (faith based initiatives, I believe it was called) passing Congress. It's possible I'm misremembering, of course.

> ...for example sex education, where abstinence is taught.

Are you arguing that abstinence does not prevent pregnancy? If it does, why shouldn't it be taught in sex education? Now, teaching it as the only alternative would be another matter.

> You also get that flouting when when religious agenda are allowed to set Science curricula, by introducing religious theology masquerading as science - the pseudo science of Creationism and Intelligent Design....

Neither of which is taught as Science anywhere in the US that I know of. There have been cases where it was argued they should be taught. Those arguments failed.

> This is why many Americans, and people from other countries worry that the US might become a Theocracy.

What concern is it of other countries what political course the US follows? Surely that's an internal matter?

> Where those symbols amount to the state or an arm of the state promoting a religious ideology, this is not only reasonable, but also within keeping with the establishment clause.

And what if the removal of such symbols promotes atheism? That's would also be against the establishment clause.

> We wouldn't get much science done, and students would in the end be even more scientifically illiterate...

You're making the common mistake of assuming that the goal of the public school system is to educate people. It's not. The school system exists to indoctrinate people, not educate them. As I told Dino, education is far to important to be left to the state.

> We don't teach Creationism as science in the US. We don't teach Intelligent Design as science either.

The Kansas Board of Education did try to change the definition of science to allow creationism/intelligent design to be taught as science. Several board members lost in the Republican primary, so that tells you what kind of a minority they are. Not that it would have been likely to stand a court challenge anyway (contingent on a school actually attempting to do that, and I'm not aware of any that did).

>Several board members lost in the Republican primary, so that tells you what kind of a minority they are.

I don't understand what you're saying there.

What I do understand is that people are free to believe as they wish and they are free to further their goals -- up to and until the law draws a line. Put the wrong people in the right place and you get a temporary imbalance. As I recall, the Kansas situation made news everywhere, underscoring the anamoly that it was.

> We don't teach Creationism as science in the US. We don't teach Intelligent Design as science either.

Um, actually, Intelligent Design was a matter of Scientists approaching the Church - the possibility of our planet forming at all were so miniscule they could only arrive at one conclusion - some sort of intelligent design. This is the scientists, not the Church. The Catholic Church in Rome has played a part in the dialog - probably has contributed much to the discussion, since they have astronomers in their service (clergymen). I'm afraid I no longer have the magazine where I read that, but it was either Time or US News. But I specifically recall that the scientists were the ones who initiated the conversation.

> As I recall, the Kansas situation made news everywhere, underscoring the anamoly that it was.

Absolutely - the fact that even Republicans in Kansas, hardly a liberal stronghold, don't like messing with science education demonstrates that the view of some outside the US is not very accurate. There were even reports in Asia news outlets about the strange policy in Kansas, and that becomes the view of many about the US.

> But I specifically recall that the scientists were the ones who initiated the conversation.

Yes, but, let us remember, we live in a world where those who question anything wearing the label "Global Warming" are equated with Holocaust deniers.

The truth is that Intelligent Design is not mainstream science. It is not appropriate for a science class although I think it would be great stuff for a philosophy of science class, ie, one that probes what science is more than the knowledge that science has uncovered.

"The problem with intelligent-design theory is not that it is false but that it is not falsifiable: Not being susceptible to contradicting evidence, it is not a testable hypothesis. Hence it is not a scientific but a creedal tenet—a matter of faith, unsuited to a public school's science curriculum."

It is not a matter of opposing (at least for me) the teaching of intelligent design, it's teaching it as science. That's the main reason the Kansas BOE tried to change the definition of science.

I thought you were smarter than that. George Will is one of the best minds in the talking head set. No William F. Buckley, jr, but, then, who is?

Sadly, you pick a quote that illustrates a minor misunderstanding on his part.

Some elements of ID are susceptible to contradicting evidence and are thus testable.

Specificly, I am thinking of irreducible complexity. That could be refuted with regard to specific examples (such as flagellar motors) by demonstrating a process consistent with the theory (or theories, as the case may be) of evolution by which those examples could come about.

I think it hasn't been done to date because it hardly seems worth the trouble. The whole irreducible complexity argument sounds to me like people who argue that the Egyptians must have had help from space aliens to build the pyramids because we don't know of any technology that could do it. Presuming B requires more than not knowing how A came about.

> I thought you were smarter than that. George Will is one of the best minds in the talking head set. No William F. Buckley, jr, but, then, who is?

While I make no claims to intelligence, it's more a reference to my lack of interest in politics, rather than a criticism of George Will. I don't spend my days listening to Randi Rhodes and my evenings watching Michael Moore documentaries either. I do listen to Ed Schultz every now and then.

As for William F. Buckley, Jr, I'm just a youngster. He must have been more influential back in the old days.